Let's be careful with those XML submissions to IANA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Looking at RFC5102 (IPFIXinfo), it, like many RFC, has normative definitions
in the body of the document and a non-normative appendix, which, since it
brings the definitions together, is easier and so more likely to be used.

Indeed, the IANA considerations, s.7, tell IANA to register the non-normative
appendix which is fine as long as the two are in step but what happens when they
are not?

In fact, they do differ slightly.

The IANA considerations register
   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-15
   XML: See Appendix B for this document.

whereas Appendix B says that the name is
   <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info"
which is what is in the IANA registry.

IANA have used Appendix B and so have got the right answer
by doing the 'wrong' thing.

(Interestingly the last I-D of this document had, in Appendix B,
 <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-10"
 xmlns:ipfix="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-10")

What if an error is discovered in the body of the document (I have not looked
at it in any detail) and an erratum is raised against it?  Does this implicitly
request IANA to update the registry? Does it matter whether the erratum is
against the appendix or the body of the document?

(I think this is called the distributed database problem:-)

 Tom Petch

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]